First part of an interview with David Daley, who has studied gerrymandering and its use for partisan purposes.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Let's be realistic. It's not gonna happen. Kennedy's gonna vote with Thomas and Alito, and gerrymandering is gonna be legal forever.

In Vieth he only sort of voted with them. He concurred in the judgment but not in overturning Baker v. Carr, and specifically said that he'd consider claims that partisan gerrymandering has gone too far if someone can actually find a decent metric for it.

That, essentially, is what's now happened with Gill. People have worked since Vieth to come up with such a measure, and now they think they've got one that will satisfy Kennedy.

As I saw Vieth described: Four conservative justices said that gerrymandering is great! Four liberal justices said that gerrymandering sucks! And Kennedy threw up his hands and said, "I'm confused! Some smart person help me!"

Apparently, what might happen in the gerrymandering case is that Kennedy will say, "Well... I agree with the complainants... but they don't have standing."

« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 12:41:41 am by dpareja »

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?